'Resumption Of Physical Hearings Affect Women Lawyers More Adversely' : Women Lawyers Move Supreme Court Against Delhi HC Decision To Start Physical Functioning

The Supreme Court has been moved in another writ petition by women advocates against the decision of the High Court of Delhi has directed for the resumption and expansion of physical hearing of cases in Courts within the National Capital Territory of Delhi, without giving an option to the litigants to be represented by their advocates virtually in matters listed before physical court.As per Notification dated January 14 and 15 issued by the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, 2 Division Benches, 3 Single Benches (Civil side), 3 Single Benches (criminal side), 3 original jurisdiction (civil) of the High Court will be holding physical courts every day. Additionally, all the courts of Joint Registrars (judicial) in the High Court and all the subordinate courts in 6 District Courts shall hold physical Court every alternate day w.e.f from 18.01.2021.The Petitioners Advocates Amrita Sharma,Saumya Tandon,Padma Priya,Asmita Narula, Shivani Luthra who are practicing women advocates before the High Court of Delhi as well as the District Courts in Delhi submitted that he Impugned office order deserve to be quashed in view of the fact they compel the advocates, court staff, litigants and other persons appearing before the Courts to put at risk their own, as well as their family members' health in order to earn livelihood. "The said notification unfairly compels the said persons to choose between the health, well-being, life and liberty of the lawyers, clerks, court staff, support staff, the judges, litigants and the families of all such persons on the one part and the right to carry on their respective professions / trade on the other, by compelling them to attend the court hearings in person. As such, the Impugned office order have the direct consequence of infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India".It is submitted that are deeply aggrieved by the said decision in as much as there is no provision made in the Impugned office order to ensure that those litigants who cannot be represented in physical courts by their advocates could either request for virtual hearing or participate in physical court using video-conferencing", urges the plea.It is advanced that the Impugned office orders fail to take into consideration the fact that advocates cannot effectively represent their clients in virtual hearings while being present in the Physical court simultaneously. Furthermore, by failing to provide any option to the litigant/lawyers to request for virtual hearing in matters listed before physical court or providing an option to join physical court by video conferencing, the Impugned office order impinges upon the right to access to justice of the litigants and the right to life and livelihood of the advocates."As a matter of fact there are a large number of lawyers aged 50 and above; there are those suffering from co-morbidities and other health related issues and there are also those who have young or vulnerable family members living with them, all of whom shall be put to grave risk in the event the physical hearings by the High Court of Delhi and the District Courts in Delhi as sought to be mandated by the Impugned office order. Advocates have been effectively discharging their professional duties by representing their clients before the Virtual Court using existing video conferencing facilities while working from the safety of their homes", it is submitted.Furthermore, it is argued that there are women and men lawyers, including the present petitioners, having young children doing home schooling/virtual schooling and due to the current system of virtual hearing in courts they have been able to discharge their professional duties towards their client even while taking care of their children/minors. If the Impugned office order are given effect to without the option of virtual hearing, then such lawyers shall be constrained to choose between their professional duties and taking care of their young children, or worse be constrained to expose themselves, their children as well as vulnerable members of their families to Covid-19 as the Impugned office order leave them with no alternative."The Impugned office order are further discriminatory as regards individuals such as pregnant women, nursing mothers, mothers of young children, persons with comorbidities etc. most of whom fall within the categories of persons excepted from the vaccination drive. As such, the undue direct exposure that may be caused to the said category of persons on account of increasing physical hearing, and the further indirect exposure to members of their families, particularly young children and elderlies shall be in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India" The Impugned office orders are going to affect several women lawyers even more adversely who have managed to carry out their professional duties till now under the system of virtual hearing but will now be forced to...

'Resumption Of Physical Hearings Affect Women Lawyers More Adversely' : Women Lawyers Move Supreme Court Against Delhi HC Decision To Start Physical Functioning

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain

'Resumption Of Physical Hearings Affect Women Lawyers More Adversely' : Women Lawyers Move Supreme Court Against Delhi HC Decision To Start Physical Functioning

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers